IDAHO FATALITY

Originally Posted by BobW

On 8/23/2011 9:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, wrote:
Ummmm...what're the chances of having an unplanned, low-altitude rope
break/premature termination of tow (for any reason) vs. having an unplanned
zoomie suddenly appear?

The very fact that zoomies are planned in advance makes them less
surprising, and therefore less prone to panic, rushing things etc than
unplanned rope breaks.

Thanks for helping make my point more clear. The planned aspect to zoomies is
all the more reason not to bugger one up...yet it would seem possible that
this *might* have been the case here.

Why is one mandated to be practiced (with instructors) and the other not?

You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
maneuver.

Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are their sites in
NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in the U.S. that
advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard offerings.

Regards,
Bob W.

Hi

Final glides are part of the Qualified Glider Pilot syllabus and competition finishes are part of the Advanced Training syllabus available in NZ

http://www.gliding.co.nz/sites/glidi...ning/s_qgp.pdf

http://www.gliding.co.nz/sites/glidi...ning/s_adv.pdf

Regards
Colin

On Sep 1, 10:35*am, Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Now that this report is out, it sounds like a tragic replay of the
2001 accident in Uvalde. See slides 6 and 7 here for analysis

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...est_safety.ppt

We'll never know exactly what went through the pilots' minds, but the
ingredients are the same

Little recent time -- little recent experience landing in a variety of
conditions
Low pass down the middle of the runway, but not very high speed. (And
in this case, an older glider with less energy retention)
Downwind illusion - less airspeed than groundspeed in a decently
strong tailwind
Pull up give less altitude than expected
180 degree turn leaves the pilot off the edge of the runway, lower
than expected and drifting downwind -- need for suddenly greater turn
Possible dehydration -- no pee system installed; high temperatures

The downwind illusion is very powerful. It's interesting to watch
students want to run the downwind at 40 knots when there is a strong
tailwind blowing.

I think our discussion here has drifted too far off to contest low
passes -- higher performance gliders, and 120 knots -- and less to
basics like downwind illusion, glider turns on a point illusion, and
ruddering a panicked turn from base to final.

I guess instructors have some items to stress on BFRs.

These are basics, but they are tricky basics. Learning to anticipate
how wind will affect a pattern and how fast the ground will be going
by are things that even quite experienced pilots get wrong. Adding a
"nonstandard" pattern adds to the list of things that need to be
anticipated, for example that the 180 degree turn will use up some
radius.

John Cochrane

On Aug 25, 2:12*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote.........
In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
airfield boundary was killed,

US Rules Committee please take note.
JJ

No he didn't JJ. He said 'not remotely true'. Low passes below 30ft
are banned in competition. High energy go arounds are still the norm.

Jim

On 9/1/2011 7:19 PM, Ventus_a wrote:

Snip...

You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
maneuver.-

Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are there
sites in
NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in the U.S.
that
advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard offerings.

Snip...

Hi

Final glides are part of the Qualified Glider Pilot syllabus and
competition finishes are part of the Advanced Training syllabus
available in NZ

http://tinyurl.com/3z7a6mh

http://tinyurl.com/3s9p6eu

Regards
Colin

More (apparently) good/usable input on the subject of zoomie instruction. (I
use 'apparently' because when I tried to use the links, I was unable to obtain
connections.)

So now RAS readers have been informed zoomie instruction is available both in
NZ and OZ...and we're told mandatory, prior to contest involvement, in OZ.

From my perspective (given the severally-thin-margins associated with
safe-and-sane zoomie execution [pun not intended]), the NZ and OZ approaches
seem prudent, if not outright wise.

Regards,
Bob W.

No he didn't JJ. He said 'not remotely true'. Low passes below 30ft
are banned in competition. High energy go arounds are still the norm.

Jim

Yeah, I stand corrected. Time was that John & I were pushing for
elimination of the finish line altogether and just use the finish
circle to end the race. Looks like I'm alone with the safer
alternative. I have done my last low pass some years back. Too bad it
is seen as the "thing" to do by newbies. I believe most contests are
opting for the finish cylinder for liability reasons.

On the down-wind illusion, I can still remember one of my first out-
landings. Picked a road in the desert near Flanigan, NV. As I started
to flare, the feel of the ship was slow, but a very powerfull force
was telling me, "Your going much too fast, slow her down", because I
was going fast over the ground, but all I could do was to hold my
attitude and accept a high speed landing. We lost a pilot at Air
Sailing to this, Rope break at 800 feet on a wave tow into a 30 knot
wind. He made a good 180 turn, then stalled and spun-in going down-
wind. The ground was going by at 70, but he was stalling at 40.
Stay safe,
JJ

On 9/1/2011 6:12 PM, Bill D wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:49 pm, jim wrote:
On Sep 1, 2:44 pm, Bill wrote:









On Sep 1, 12:25 pm, Frank wrote:

On Sep 1, 9:35 am, Judy wrote:

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. (The pilots notice it
too) The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. I once asked him why he moved it. He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. Tiny cellphone/pager
vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
warning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I respectfully disagree. Not attempting a high speed pass in a slow
glider might have saved a life. Flying THAT glider more frequently may
have saved a life. I don't think having the stick buzz a second before
the stall/spin would have helped given the pilot's lack of experience
in THAT glider.

Shoving the stick forward one second before a stall break will prevent
it in any glider.
The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
and it didn't seem to help them. More gadgets won't compensate for a
lack of basic airmanship.

--
Mike Schumann

On Sep 3, 12:27*pm, Mike Schumann
The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
and it didn't seem to help them. *More gadgets won't compensate for a
lack of basic airmanship.

True, but the point of the "gadgets" as you call them is to attract
attention to a condition so that the pilot can apply basic airmanship
and save the day (and his life).

Just saying "gadgets wont help" is like saying "ban all low passes" -
it totally ignores the fact that stick shakers have in the past and
will continue in the future save many lives - and that low passes are
done all the time in perfect safety by careful pilots without any
problem, while other pilots continue to crash while attempting a
simple landing.

I agree, though, that at the bottom of all this (and to our appalling
safety record in soaring) lies an amazing lack of discipline and
"airmanship" in our glider pilot population, coupled with what I
consider a haphazard system of instruction - good individual
instructors hampered by a lack of standardization, etc...

Kirk
66

On Sep 4, 11:47*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 3, 12:27*pm, Mike Schumann

The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
and it didn't seem to help them. *More gadgets won't compensate for a
lack of basic airmanship.

True, but the point of the "gadgets" as you call them is to attract
attention to a condition so that the pilot can apply basic airmanship
and save the day (and his life).

Just saying "gadgets wont help" is like saying "ban all low passes" -
it totally ignores the fact that stick shakers have in the past and
will continue in the future save many lives - and that low passes are
done all the time in perfect safety by careful pilots without any
problem, while other pilots continue to crash while attempting a
simple landing.

I agree, though, that at the bottom of all this (and to our appalling
safety record in soaring) lies an amazing lack of discipline and
"airmanship" in our glider pilot population, coupled with what I
consider a haphazard system of instruction - good individual
instructors hampered by a lack of standardization, etc...

Kirk
66

Kirk - "haphazard system of instruction" ... BINGO

On 9/4/2011 11:47 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sep 3, 12:27 pm, Mike
The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
and it didn't seem to help them. More gadgets won't compensate for a
lack of basic airmanship.

True, but the point of the "gadgets" as you call them is to attract
attention to a condition so that the pilot can apply basic airmanship
and save the day (and his life).

Just saying "gadgets wont help" is like saying "ban all low passes" -
it totally ignores the fact that stick shakers have in the past and
will continue in the future save many lives - and that low passes are
done all the time in perfect safety by careful pilots without any
problem, while other pilots continue to crash while attempting a
simple landing.

I agree, though, that at the bottom of all this (and to our appalling
safety record in soaring) lies an amazing lack of discipline and
"airmanship" in our glider pilot population, coupled with what I
consider a haphazard system of instruction - good individual
instructors hampered by a lack of standardization, etc...

Kirk
66
I am not against all "gadgets". I just think that we need to
prioritize, given the limited amount of panel space, and equally
importantly, the limited ability of people to learn how to use all the
stuff they are putting into their cockpits.

At the top of my list would be collision avoidance gear (PowerFlarm /
ADS-B / transponder type stuff). This will potentially save a properly
trained pilot. My personal feeling is that you really aren't trained
properly if you can't sense and feel a stall coming on and don't
instinctively know what to do about it. Adding another instrument to
tell you what you should already know, just adds another item to your
scan, which distracts you from more important stuff, like looking for
traffic.

--
Mike Schumann

On Sep 5, 7:54*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
I am not against all "gadgets". *I just think that we need to
prioritize, given the limited amount of panel space, and equally
importantly, the limited ability of people to learn how to use all the
stuff they are putting into their cockpits.

I agree with respect to a lot of the fancy PNA programs - they have
the potential to display so much useless info!

However, we were discussing stick shakers/stall warning systems
specifically - which are pretty bone-simple - even a caveman can
understand how they work!

At the top of my list would be collision avoidance gear (PowerFlarm /
ADS-B / transponder type stuff). *This will potentially save a properly
trained pilot. *My personal feeling is that you really aren't trained
properly if you can't sense and feel a stall coming on and don't
instinctively know what to do about it. *Adding another instrument to
tell you what you should already know, just adds another item to your
scan, which distracts you from more important stuff, like looking for
traffic.

Apparently the FAA, NASA, Air Force, Boeing, Airbus, and airlines do
not share you opinion...

Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). Add
a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. Add
to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
warning system becomes even more clear.

Kirk
66